ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 1
Running head: ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
Moser, K.S., Dawson, J.F. & West, M.A. (2018). Antecedents of team
innovation in health care teams. Creativity and Innovation Management.
DOI: 10.1111/caim.12285
Accepted for publication 26th
June 2018
Antecedents of team innovation in health care teams
Karin S. Moser1, Jeremy F. Dawson
2 & Michael A. West
3
1London South Bank University, UK
2University of Sheffield, UK
3Lancaster University, UK
Author Notes
Karin S. Moser ([email protected]; corresponding author) is Professor of
Organisational Behaviour and Director of Research at the Business School, London South
Bank University. Her research focuses on cooperation and knowledge-sharing in social
dilemmas, motivation for prosocial behaviour at work and the influence of digital
technologies, cultural background and social norms on collaboration.
Jeremy F. Dawson is Professor of Health Management at Sheffield University
Management School, University of Sheffield. His research focuses on team working,
workplace diversity, and management practices in healthcare linking to employee
engagement, well-being, and quality of patient care. He also researches methodological
issues, including interpretation of interaction effects and measurement of group diversity.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 2
Michael A. West is a Senior Fellow at The King’s Fund, London (a healthcare
charity) and Professor of Organizational Psychology at the Management School of Lancaster
University. He has authored many books and research articles on innovation and creativity at
work.
Acknowledgements
The presented research was supported by a research fellowship from the Swiss
National Science Foundation (Grant PIOI1-117193) to the first author for a sabbatical at the
Work and Organisational Psychology Group at Aston Business School, while the first author
was still at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and the second and third authors were still
at Aston Business School, UK.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 3
Antecedents of team innovation in health care teams
Abstract
We extend previous research on team innovation by looking at team-level motivations
and how a prosocial team environment, indicated by the level of helping behaviour and
information-sharing, may foster innovation. Hypotheses were tested in two independent
samples of health-care teams (N1=72 teams, N2=113 teams), using self-report measures. The
examples of team innovation given by the individual team members were then rated for
innovativeness by independent health care experts to avoid common method bias for the
outcome variable. Subsequently, the data was aggregated and analysed at team level. The
study was part of a larger data-gathering effort on health care teams in the UK. Results
supported the hypotheses of main effects of both information-sharing and helping behaviour
on team innovation and interaction effects with team size and occupational diversity.
Differences in findings between types of health-care teams can be attributed to differences in
team tasks and functions. The results suggest ways in which helping and information-sharing
may act as buffers against constraints in team work, such as large team size or high
occupational diversity in cross-functional health care teams, and potentially turn these into
resources supporting team innovation rather than acting as barriers.
Key words: team innovation, helping, information-sharing, health care teams, team
diversity, prosocial climate
Classification: Research paper
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 4
Antecedents of team innovation in health care teams
Innovation is often seen as the output of ingenious individuals with exceptional skills
and expertise. While creative individuals may be important for innovation, in everyday work
life many tasks are done cooperatively in teams. This is certainly true for the health care
sector where the majority of tasks could not be accomplished by individuals working alone.
This poses the question of how innovation happens in a group context and what conditions
support innovation in teams.
Here we suggest that that innovation is not restricted to inventions, such as new drugs
or new surgical procedures, but that innovation in a more general sense also relates to the
ability to respond to demands or pressures at work by doing things in a new way. If
innovation is defined in this way it can be seen as an important team performance measure
(Chen, Farh, Campbell-Bush, Wu, & Wu, 2013; West, 2002).
The degree to which teams are innovative is a crucial element of organisational
success and thus is of both practical and theoretical interest. In line with recent models and
studies on team innovation (see for instance, Alexander & Van Knippenberg, 2014; Chen et
al., 2013; Ramirez Heller, Berger, & Brodbeck, 2014; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013), we
argue that team innovation is closely related to team level processes, namely to whether the
team environment is prosocial, characterised by team member helping and information
sharing. We propose that the degree of innovation at team level depends on the willingness of
team members to help and to share information with each other beyond the immediate
requirements of routine task duties and role obligations. A recent review points to the
importance of what the authors called ‘team altruism’ for the understanding of motivational
processes at team level (Ning, Kirkman, & Porter, 2014). In line with this, we propose that
team innovativeness is fostered by a basic willingness to share views, expertise and ideas
within the team and to invest time and effort in doing so. We also propose that this
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 5
willingness to help and share may act as a buffer against unfavourable constraints in team
work, such as large team sizes or high occupational diversity.
With this focus of the paper, we are addressing a gap in research. While there is
considerable research on team innovation (see below), there is no research to date specifically
looking at the role of information sharing and helping as antecedents of team innovation. We
also propose to do so in the context of health care teams as they are of particular interest
because of their ubiquity across countries, the increasing demands on health care systems and
the financial implications for nations of inefficiency or ineffectiveness in the delivery of
health care (West, Topakas & Dawson, 2014). The teams studied here consisted of highly
qualified professionals, working under high pressure. This is a work context where high
adaptability and hence high innovativeness at team level are central to effectiveness under
pressure.
Overview of research
Team innovation as performance outcome measure and related team processes
Innovation, that is the introduction and implementation of new ideas, processes or
products (West, 2002; West & Farr, 1990), is essential for the adaptability of organisations. It
is a key component of team performance. There is evidence that leadership style and
characteristics can have an influence on team innovation (for example, Mumford et al.,
2007). However, previous studies also show that the relationship between leadership and
innovation is not straight forward. Follower characteristics as well as task characteristics and
complexity have been shown to be important moderators of leadership effectiveness together
with group processes such as clarity of objectives, participation and general support for
innovation (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004). For health care teams in particular there is
empirical evidence that leadership clarity is important for team innovation as a performance
outcome (West et al., 2003). This is also related to research showing the relationship between
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 6
leadership style, team climate and performance more generally, with a number of studies
especially on R&D teams (Chen et al., 2013) confirming the importance of a positive team
climate (Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002), of organisational support for innovation but also of group
tasks that give opportunities for creativity (Bain, Mann & Pirola-Merlo, 2001).
While there is clear evidence for the importance of leadership, organisational support
and a positive team climate for innovation, there are no studies specifically looking at the
influence of information sharing and helping behaviour in teams, yet both team processes we
would argue are important for the skills and knowledge integration that stimulates team
innovation. In a knowledge intensive economy, it is important to understand in more detail
how knowledge creation and integration occur and whether they support team innovation.
It is also important to study these processes not only in R&D teams where innovation
and creativity are both, the main goal and the actual content of the team work, but in other
work contexts where innovation may be important but not a goal in itself. Health care teams
are an interesting testing ground for this as they are knowledge-intensive and their members
tend to have high levels of specialist expertise. In addition, most health care teams are
composed of members with different professional backgrounds who deliver under high
pressure in an environment that is often under-resourced. Studying team innovation in such a
challenging work context could give important insights into the conditions under which
health care teams are able to be innovative and adaptive to changing demands.
Helping and information sharing as antecedents for team innovation
In principle, high knowledge diversity in teams such as different types of expertise
and different occupational backgrounds should increase team innovation because more
knowledge and varying perspectives are available to the team. However, previous research
has shown that the relationship between diversity and innovation is not straightforward and
that diversity can have both positive and negative effects on team performance (van
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 7
Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). For example, multi-disciplinarity as one possible indicator
of knowledge diversity in a team may increase the quality of innovations but not necessarily
the number of innovative ideas (Fay, Borrill, Amir, Haward, & West, 2006).
Information sharing. One crucial aspect is whether team members are motivated to
give their expertise for the benefit of the team (Gagné, 2009). Research on information
sharing has focused mainly on the type of information that is shared or unshared and its
impact on decision quality (Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2002;
Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995). Some studies have also looked at antecedents of
information sharing, such as trust (Butler, 1999), task and reward interdependence (Moser &
Wodzicki, 2007), or how person perception might affect information exchange (de Bruin &
Van Lange, 2000). There is theory but little research exploring the link between information
sharing and group performance (e.g., innovation) (Basadur & Gelade, 2006; Diehl & Ziegler,
2000). The existing studies focus on decision-making in groups, but do not investigate
innovation as a team output (Bonner, Baumann, & Dalal, 2002; Brand, Reimer, & Opwis,
2003). There is also a lack of research into motivational aspects of information sharing
including the type of information people share and why they might or might not share
information (Gagné, 2009; Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004).
Helping behaviour. More recent research stresses the importance of team level
motivation for team performance in general, including innovation, and especially in contexts
of high team diversity (Guillaume et al., 2014). One source of motivation is a positive team
climate. A number of studies have shown how climate factors influence team performance
and more specifically, team innovation (Anderson & West, 1996, 1998; Patterson et al.,
2005). Studies have also shown helping behaviour to be connected to team performance,
especially if collaborative norms are present (Ng & Van Dyne, 2005). Helping behaviour was
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 8
also found to be correlated with commitment and interdependence in teams (Van Der Vegt,
Bunderson, & Oosterhof, 2006).
A recent review specifically about the health care sector shows that team climate has a
significant impact on the quality of patient care and on patient mortality (West, Topakas, &
Dawson, 2014). One of the central factors identified across studies was whether staff
members felt supported both by their supervisors as well their co-workers. Another recent
study investigated how relational coordination was related to the care of older patients
(Hartgerink et al., 2014). The authors defined relational coordination as the quality of
communication and the quality of relationships among team members which was measured as
shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. The results showed that the degree of
relational coordination had a positive impact on the quality of integrated care, especially in
teams with members from different professional backgrounds.
Based on the above, we argue that both helping behaviour and information sharing in
teams are essential antecedents of team innovation:
Hypothesis 1: Information sharing in teams is positively associated with team
innovation.
Hypothesis 2: Helping behaviour in teams is positively associated with team
innovation.
Moderating processes: Occupational diversity and team size
We look at two important potential moderators of team innovation: size and
occupational diversity. In a large team there is potentially more knowledge available and thus
a higher innovation potential. However this may be diminished by higher coordination costs
and a loss of cohesion and motivation .Diversity in occupational backgrounds offers more
expertise, but high diversity may also imply insufficient overlap of knowledge and high
coordination costs, thereby hindering team performance..
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 9
Diversity. Several studies have found that teams with members who have diverse but
overlapping knowledge are the most innovative (Dunbar, 1995, 1997). An established
distinction in diversity research is between characteristics that relate to work roles versus
characteristics that relate to the person (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). While there is
empirical evidence that task-related diversity is related to better quality of decision-making in
teams, occupational diversity tends to be beneficial only if group processes support team
integration (Jackson, 1992). This is supported by the findings of an UNESCO study on
performance of scientific teams, which showed how communication processes moderated the
relationship between diversity and team innovation (Payne, 1990).
In teams with members from different occupational backgrounds, high knowledge
diversity will lead to greater variation in in perspectives on the team task and the pool of
potential knowledge will be greater. In particular, in teams where there is greater potential for
flow of information between people from different groups, this gives more opportunities for
the sharing and development of knowledge. However, without good team processes this
potential cannot be exploited (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). A recent review by
Guillaume et al. (2013) confirms the importance of team processes and especially of a
positive team climate for diversity to be beneficial to team performance. This is also
supported by research based on the categorization-elaboration-model (CEM; van
Knippenberg et al., 2004) which assumes that the contribution of diversity to performance
outcomes such as innovation is not so much dependent on the skills and knowledge in a team,
but depends primarily on the team members’ elaboration of information and different
perspectives. The willingness to elaborate on information and engage in perspective-taking in
turn depends largely on the motivation of team members (Guillaume et al., 2014).
Occupational diversity is the most commonly used measure of knowledge diversity in
teams. Within healthcare teams, different occupations bring knowledge to the team. Different
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
10
healthcare professionals, e.g. doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists and
occupational therapists have distinct training and education from each other, and other non-
clinical groups, such as administrative staff and general managers, may come from very
different backgrounds. It is therefore appropriate to treat occupational diversity as a measure
of knowledge diversity in this case.
Hypothesis 3: Occupational diversity will moderate the effects of both information
sharing (Hypothesis 3a) and helping behaviour (Hypothesis 3b) on team innovation;
specifically, the effects will be stronger when occupational diversity is high.
Team size. Group size influences behaviour in groups (De Cremer & Leonardelli,
2003). Larger groups generally should have a greater potential for innovation because
different perspectives are represented in the group. However, some of that group potential is
lost because coordination processes in communicating different perspectives and in arriving
at a joint understanding of the team goal take up more time (Cruz, Boster, & Rodriguez,
1997). In larger groups it is also more difficult to hold team members accountable for their
contributions and to sanction free-riding which could potentially lower innovation (Karau &
Williams, 1993). There is some evidence from previous studies in the health care sector that
there is a correlation between team size and team working in general (Care Quality
Commission, 2017; Xyrichis & Lowton, 2008) as well as specifically with respect to team
innovation (Curral et al., 2001). The study by Curral et al. (2001) with 87 cross sector teams
found that large teams under high pressure to innovate had poorer team processes which
impacted negatively on team innovation. Another, recent study in R&D teams found that the
relation between team size and innovation was moderated by participative safety (Peltokorpi
& Hasu, 2014), similar to what we are investigating here in relation to information sharing
and helping in health care teams. Based on this we suggest that larger groups will need to
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
11
compensate for their size by having higher levels of both information sharing and helping
behaviour to achieve similar levels of innovation as smaller groups.
Hypothesis 4: Team size will moderate the effects of both information sharing
(Hypothesis 4a) and helping behaviour (Hypothesis 4b) on team innovation; specifically, the
effects will be stronger in larger teams.
Method
Samples and Procedure
Two types of multidisciplinary health care teams participated in the studies presented
here: 72 breast cancer care teams (BCTs) and 113 community mental health teams (CMHTs).
The two team types represent different populations with different tasks, in different
settings and different team compositions. BCTs are responsible for the diagnosis and
treatment of breast cancer and include mainly senior medical doctors from a range of
subdisciplines (such as surgeons and oncologists), nurses, and administrative staff (Haward et
al., 2003). CMHTs provide community based services to people with mental illnesses with
doctors on the team compared to BCTs. CMHTs include psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses,
social workers, and administrative staff.
The study was part of a larger data-gathering effort providing three large samples of
health care teams throughout the United Kingdom, and the data collection procedure was
similar to that described by Schippers, West and Dawson (2012), Fay, Borrill, Amir, Haward,
and West (2006); Stewart (2006); and West et al. (2003). Two previous studies also looked at
innovation as outcome variable, one looking at the role of multi-disciplinarity for innovation
in primary health care and breast cancer teams (Fay et al., 2006), and Schippers et al. (2012)
focusing the role of team reflexivity for innovation in primary health care teams only. While
they used the same outcome measure of independent expert ratings for innovation, all other
measures in the current studies are different, including the occupational diversity measure.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
12
The sample of BCTs was randomly selected from the 190 breast cancer care teams
listed in the UK Cancer Relief Macmillan Directory (Macmillan Cancer Relief, 2003). 113
BCTs were sampled between 1999 and 2000, of which 96 initially agreed to participate; in
order to be included in the analysis, responses were needed from at least one breast surgeon,
one breast nurse and two of the other three core disciplines comprising BCTs. This resulted in
72 teams being included. The CMHTs were selected from all four health regions across
England to ensure that teams were representative for different socioeconomic locations,
mixes of professional skills, and client bases. 162 teams were selected, of whom 113 agreed
to participate. Both samples were broadly representative of their type of team in England
from a geographical perspective.
Self-report questionnaires, asking respondents to report their perceptions of team
processes, innovation, information sharing, and effectiveness, were completed by 548
respondents from 72 BCTs and 1443 respondents from 113 CMHTs. The 548 respondents
from BCTs represented a response rate of 77%, and included 20% breast surgeons, 22%
breast nurses, 20% radiologists, 17% oncologists, and 21% pathologists (these are the five
main constituent groups of BCTs). The mean age was 45.5 years (standard deviation 8.1), and
47% were female. Average team tenure was 5.8 years (standard deviation 4.5 years).
The 1443 respondents from CMHTs represented a response rate of 75%, and included
39% community psychiatric nurses, 8% occupational therapists, 6 % psychiatrists, 4%
counsellors, 1% clinical psychologists, 16% social workers, 7% support workers, 14%
administrative staff and 5% assorted other workers. The mean age was 40.0 years (standard
deviation 8.4), and 67% were female. Average team tenure was 3.1 years (standard deviation
3.2 years).
Measures
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
13
Information sharing and helping behaviour. These were measured by using two
newly constructed sub-scales from the Team Climate Inventory TCI (Anderson & West,
1996). The reason for using TCI-based measures for this study was the overall strong validity
of the TCI dimensions which have been used in numerous studies on team climate (Anderson
& West, 1998; Haward et al., 2003; Fay et al., 2006; West, Topakas & Dawson, 2014).
Looking specifically at the items referring to information sharing and helping behaviour as
new sub-scales allows to test for those two team processes and their relation to team level
innovation. The scale information sharing contained three items referring to information
exchange in the team, and was taken from the team participation dimension in the TCI. An
example item is “We share information generally in the team rather than keeping it to
ourselves”. ‘Helping behaviour’ was measured using four items from the support for
innovation dimension of the TCI. The four items referred to general helping and group-
serving behaviour in the team, thus providing an indicator for the climate of mutual support
in the team. An example item is “People in the team co-operate in order to help develop and
apply new ideas”. Both scales showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha =
0.83 and 0.86 respectively). Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that although the two
variables are highly correlated, they provide a good fit to the data (Chi-squared (13df) = 37.3;
CFI = .996, TLI = .994, RMSEA = .031, SRMR = .013). In particular, it is a significantly
improved fit compared with a one-factor model (Chi-squared (14df) = 809.1; CFI = .885, TLI
= .827, RMSEA = .169, SRMR = .062; Δχ2(1df) = 772.3, p < .001). In addition, the average
variances extracted (AVE) for the two scales were .617 (information sharing) and .610
(helping behaviour), both substantially higher than the squared correlation between them
(.540), thus satisfying Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) condition for discriminant validity.
Acceptable inter-team reliability was demonstrated via intra-class correlations: ICC(1)
was 0.16 and 0.20 respectively, and ICC(2) 0.67 and 0.74 respectively, each above the
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
14
recommended thresholds suggested by Bliese (2000) and Klein et al. (2000). Additionally,
there was also good inter-rater agreement as demonstrated by average rwg values of 0.89 and
0.91 respectively, suggesting aggregation of the scales to the team level was justified
statistically.
Teachman’s index of occupational diversity. Occupational diversity was measured
using Teachman’s index (1980). This is one of two commonly-used indices of categorical
diversity, the other being Blau’s (1977) index (Harrison & Klein, 2007). The distinction
between the two indices is not at first obvious, but whereas Blau’s index is a measure of the
probability of any two group members being from different categories, Teachman’s index has
its roots as a measure of entropy in information theory: it examines the possible routes of
flow of information between different categories of team members (Shannon & Weaver,
1948). This is different from the amount of different information (which would be captured
by the total number of different groups represented); it encapsulates the evenness of
distribution between members from different categories, and therefore in groups with a
higher value of Teachman’s index, there are more possibilities for sharing information
between people from different occupational groups. Therefore, given the hypotheses link
information sharing with diversity, we consider this to be a more appropriate index than
Blau’s index in this case.
Expert ratings of team innovation. Team members were asked to write down major
changes and innovations in the team in the past 12 months. Examples of innovations include
staff finding ways of coordinating home visits to patients to ensure efficient use of time (most
tasks could be performed by one professional this obviating the need for two or more people
to visit the same person); redistribution of tasks so that administrative and clerical staff take
blood pressure measures to save time for doctors and nurses; setting up men’s health clinics;
running clinics on teenage sexual health in local youth clubs rather than in the team premises;
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
15
and patients invited to team meetings. The descriptions of these innovations were collated for
each team, and then rated by experts in the field of mental health care or breast cancer care,
respectively. Team innovations were rated using a five-point scale (from “very low” to “very
high”) on four dimensions: magnitude, radicalness, novelty, and impact (Anderson & West,
1996). The experts were medical professionals in their respective fields who were external to
the organisations being studied, and who had a good overview of the national picture in
health care services in the UK. Some were academic clinicians, others senior clinicians.
There were three independent external experts for the CMH teams, and four for the BC
teams. ICC(2) of between 0.72 and 0.83 for these measures demonstrated adequate inter-rater
reliability, and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 suggested that a single, overall measure of team
innovation calculated from the four separate ratings was justified.
Controls
As some research (e.g. Care Quality Commission, 2017; Xyrichis & Lowton, 2008;
Curral et al., 2001) has demonstrated links between health care team size and outcomes
(including innovation), we included team size in all analyses, whether or not it was part of the
hypothesis being tested. To ensure that occupational group diversity was not merely a
reflection of the total amount of variety within a team, we also controlled for the number of
occupational groups present in the team. We note that although this is unsurprisingly
correlated with occupational group diversity (r = 0.33), it is distinct enough to warrant its
inclusion as a separate variable.1
1 For completeness, we also ran all our analyses with age, gender and leadership clarity as control variables.
There are no theoretical grounds to expect effects of age or gender and leadership clarity has already been
studied elsewhere (West et al., 2003) and is not the focus of this study so this was done purely to exclude
possible confounding effects of these three variables. In order to retain theoretical clarity, and our rationale for
the control variables, we have not included these additional analyses in our results reporting; instead, we have
added this footnote to say that all reported results do hold also when these control variables are included.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
16
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for all variables in all
teams. The significant correlations between team type and some of the other variables suggest
it is wise to analyse the two types of teams separately.
_____________________
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
_____________________
Hypotheses 1 (information sharing) and 2 (helping behaviour) were tested by multiple
regression analysis, the results of which are shown in table 2. The two predictors, information
sharing and helping behaviour, were entered first separately and then together. Separately,
each had a significant association with innovation in community mental health teams (β = .40
and β = .55 respectively), whereas only helping behaviour had a significant association with
innovation of breast cancer teams (β = .32). When entered together, only helping behaviour
had a significant independent effect for both types of team (β = .75 for CMHTs, .35 for
BCTs), suggesting that the effects of helping behaviour are more strongly linked with team
innovation than those of information sharing. Notably the coefficient for helping behaviour in
CMHTs is substantially larger for the latter analysis than the earlier analysis, suggesting a
suppressor effect is caused by the large correlation between the predictors. Thus hypothesis 2
is strongly supported, with weaker support for hypothesis 1.
_____________________
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
_____________________
Hypotheses 3 (occupational diversity as moderator) and 4 (team size as moderator)
were tested by moderated multiple regression analysis, the results of which are shown in table
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
17
3. Separate tests were conducted for information sharing and helping behaviour, so as to
avoid obfuscation of effects due to the strong correlation between the two process variables.
_____________________
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
_____________________
In CMHTs, the effects of both process variables are moderated by both occupational
diversity and team size. Only one of these moderated effects also exists in BCTs – the effect
of team size on the information sharing-innovation relationship. The nature of these effects is
shown in figures 1 to 4, which plot the four interaction effects for CMHTs. For both
information sharing and helping behaviour, there is a strong main effect, but an even stronger
effect when occupational diversity is high. Note that there is no main effect of occupational
diversity – this is not, per se, necessarily a good or bad thing for team innovation, but when
combined with good information sharing and helping behaviour it creates a greater degree of
innovation. The effect of team size on these relationships is also clear from figures 3 and 4.
The positive effect of the processes is even greater for larger teams. Team size does have a
significant, positive, main effect with innovation, and this is exacerbated when processes are
strong – particularly helping behaviour. In fact when helping behaviour is poor, team size
makes little difference to innovation, but when it is strong, larger teams appear to have the
capacity for much greater innovation. Thus both hypotheses 3 and 4 are supported by the
CMHTs, while hypothesis 4 is also supported in BCTs.
________________________________
INSERT FIGURES 1, 2, 3 and 4 HERE
________________________________
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
18
Discussion
In the two studies presented here we argued that a climate supporting prosocial
behaviour in teams is at the core of understanding team innovation. We looked at two
different team processes that are both indicative of a prosocial team climate and important for
innovation: helping behaviour and information sharing. that The results of this research
suggested that helping behaviour had a significant independent effect on innovation for both
types of teams - breast cancer care teams (BCTs) and community mental health teams
(CMHTs) - while information sharing only had a significant association with innovation for
breast cancer teams. There was also a significant main effect of information sharing for BCTs
but not CMHTs.
The interaction effects of team size and occupational diversity were tested with
moderated regression analysis again for both helping behaviour and information sharing.
There was a main effect of team size on innovation, which increased especially if helping
behaviour in the team was strong. This again confirms the importance of a positive prosocial
climate for innovation, which is expressed in higher levels of helping behaviour. If a
prosocial climate is present in a team, this seems to enable team members to make better use
of their innovative potential. Helping behaviour is thus effectively acting as a buffer against
the potentially negative effects of large teams, and even more so than information sharing.
The importance of helping behaviour for innovation in large teams is further confirmed by
the fact that the interaction effect with team size could be confirmed for both team types, and
hence across very different team tasks and contexts.
In contrast, occupational diversity did not have a main effect on team innovation and
the interaction with occupational diversity was only found for the mental health care teams,
but not the breast cancer teams. In part this may be a reflection of the differences in team
tasks between the two team types. In this case it seems that a prosocial climate indicated by
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
19
high levels of helping behaviour and information sharing enables teams to make better use of
the various professional backgrounds of the team members and results in higher team
innovation.
Overall, we found more significant effects of helping behaviour and information
sharing for the community mental health care team than the breast cancer care teams. We
attribute the differences between the two independent samples to the differences in team tasks
and team structures. While community mental health teams have a stable team membership
and meet less regularly than breast cancer teams, breast cancer teams are cross-functional
teams with multiple team memberships. Community mental health teams with their stable
team composition can probably rely more on fixed task divisions and might also show higher
commitment and cohesion than the cross-functional breast cancer care teams. In the relatively
stable team situation of CMHTs we find the expected impact of both information sharing and
helping behaviour on innovation.
Limitations and future research
For future studies, it would be useful to include additional measures on team
cohesion, commitment and identification as well as on organisational support for innovation.
Both measures of the individual perception of organisational support provided and of the
objective organisational support given, such as time allocated for meetings and dedicated to
sharing ideas, would help in further interpreting the differences between team types and
deepen our understanding of how tasks and team composition interact with the team
processes of information sharing and helping behaviour. Another issue that we could not
address in the current studies is that both information sharing and helping behaviour are
likely to differ in their importance depending on the team development stage. In newly
formed teams, social norms supporting and enforcing helping behaviour and information
sharing need to be established first before they can contribute to team innovation, whereas in
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
20
long-standing teams norms will already be established, but are likely to differ in how
effectively they are actually supporting prosocial behaviour. Future studies should thus
consider both the team stages and the length of time a team has already worked together. A
third issue of interest for future studies is to specifically look at the role of leadership
behaviour in supporting both, information sharing and helping behaviour. We would also like
to add as a caveat that while we could show that helping behaviour and information sharing
have good discriminant validity, they are unlikely to be completely independent
psychological processes in the way they relate to team innovation.
Practical implications and concluding remarks
This study has several practical implications for team management: One important
implication is that managers need to make sure enough opportunity for information sharing is
provided and that information sharing happens on all levels, both formal and informal.
Support for formal information sharing for instance can be given by scheduling regular team
meetings with the explicit propose and space for information sharing and discussion and
integration of different information, and by ensuring that the right people are brought together
in terms of their subject expertise and experience. Informal ways of information sharing are
just as important and often some of the most effective and can be supported by physical
proximity of key team members, for instance in neighbouring or shared offices, but also by
providing attractive and shared meeting spaces such as coffee corners or tea kitchens. These
informal opportunities for exchange also tend to support a prosocial team climate more
generally and are sometimes underestimated in their effectiveness, for instance in
encouraging helping behaviour in teams. A second important implication is that information
sharing and helping behaviour need to be explicitly rewarded by managers as part of their
feedback to both the team as well to individual team members. Recent research shows that
feedback can play an important role in motivating experts to share their expertise in teams
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
21
and in particularly when sharing it with less experienced team members (Moser, 2017) which
is an important aspect of helping behaviour in teams.
In conclusion, helping behaviour especially seems to be crucial for team innovation. A
prosocial climate – evidenced in high helping behaviour and information sharing – enables
teams to use their resources to a greater extent and is associated with higher levels of team
innovation, even if teams are large and diverse in terms of occupational background. Helping
behaviour acts effectively as a buffer and turns potentially problematic aspects of team
innovation such as size and high diversity of cross-functional teams into a resource.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
22
References
Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal
orientation perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423-438.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1996). The Team Climate Inventory: Development of the
TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 53-66.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:
Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 235-258.
Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The Innovation Imperative:The
Relationships Between Team Climate, Innovation, and Performance in Research and
Development Teams. Small Group Research, 32(1), 55-73. doi:
10.1177/104649640103200103
Basadur, M., & Gelade, G. A. (2006). The Role of Knowledge Management in the Innovation
Process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 45-62.
Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R., & Dalal, R. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on
group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 88(2), 719-736.
Brand, S., Reimer, T., & Opwis, K. (2003). Effects of metacognitive thinking and knowledge
acquisition in dyads on individual problem solving and transfer performance. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 251-261.
Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2002). The
dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The
effects of pre-discussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 35-
56.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
23
Butler, J. K. (1999). Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation
effectiveness and efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 217-238.
Care Quality Commission (2017). The state of care in general practice 2014-2017.
http://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/state-care-general-practice-2014-
2017.
Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative
systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018-1027.
Cruz, M. G., Boster, F. J., & Rodriguez, J. I. (1997). The impact of group size and proportion
of shared information on the exchange and integration of information in groups.
Communication Research, 24(3), 291-313.
Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F. & West, M. A. (2001). It's what you do and the
way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes.
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10, 187-204.
de Bruin, E., & Van Lange, P. (2000). What people look for in others: Influences of the
perceiver and the perceived on information selection. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 206-219.
De Cremer, D., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Cooperation in social dilemmas and the need to
belong: The moderating effect of group size. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 7(2), 168-174.
Diehl, M., & Ziegler, R. (2000). Informationsausstausch und Ideensammlung in Gruppen. In
M. Boos, K. J. Jonas & K. Sassenberg (Eds.), Computervermittelte Kommunikation in
Organisationen (pp. 89-101). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
24
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientist really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world
laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp.
365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science.
In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of
conceptual structures and processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Fay, D., Borrill, C. S., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. A. (2006). Getting the most out of
multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553-567.
Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource
Management, 48(4), 571-589.
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Priola, V., Sacramento, C. A., Woods, S. A., Higson, H.
E., . . . West, M. A. (2014). Managing diversity in organizations: An integrative
model and agenda for future research. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 23(5), 783-802.
Hartgerink, J. M., Cramm, J. M., Bakker, T. J. E. M., Eijsden, A. M., Mackenbach, J. P., &
Nieboer, A. P. (2014). The importance of multidisciplinary teamwork and team
climate for relational coordination among teams delivering care to older patients.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(4), 791-799.
Haward, R., Amir, Z., Borrill, C., Dawson, J., Scully, J., West, M. A., & Sainsbury, M.
(2003). Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and
methods of operation on their effectiveness. British Journal of Cancer, 89, 15-22.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
25
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of
strategic issue processing. Advances in strategic management, 8, 345-382.
Macmillan Cancer Relief. (2003). The Macmillan Cancer Relief Directory. Available at:
http://www.hfht.org/macmillan.
Moser, K. S. (2017). The influence of feedback and expert status in knowledge sharing
dilemmas. Applied Psychology: An International Review. doi: 10.1111/apps.12105
Moser, K. S., & Wodzicki, K. (2007). The effect of reward interdependence on cooperation
and information-sharing intentions. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 117-127.
Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., Eubanks, D. L., Bedell, K. E., & Murphy, S. T. (2007).
Developing leaders for creative efforts: A domain-based approach to leadership
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 402-417. doi:
10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.002
Mumford, M. D., & Licuanan, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and
directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 163-171. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.010
Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping
behavior in work groups. Group & Organization Management, 30(5), 514-540.
Ning, L. I., Kirkman, B. L., & Porter, C. O. L. H. (2014). TOWARD A MODEL OF WORK
TEAM ALTRUISM. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 541-565. doi:
10.5465/amr.2011.0160
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., . . .
Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: links to
managerial practices, productivity, and innovation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 379-408.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
26
Payne, R. (1990). The effectiveness of research teams: A review. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr
(Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies
(pp. 101-122). Chichester: Wiley.
Peltokorpi, V., & Hasu, M. (2014). How Participative Safety Matters More in Team
Innovation as Team Size Increases. Journal of Business & Psychology, 29(1), 37-45.
doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9301-1
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact
of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(5), 561-581. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00144-3
Ramirez Heller, B., Berger, R., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2014). Does an adequate team climate for
learning predict team effectiveness and innovation potential? A psychometric
validation of the Team Climate questionnaire for Learning in an organizational
context. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 543 – 550.
Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team Reflexivity and Innovation
The Moderating Role of Team Context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769-788.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating Team Creativity to Innovation
Implementation: The Role of Team Composition and Climate for Innovation. Journal
of Management, 39(3), 684-708. doi: 10.1177/0149206310394187
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information
exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 244-265.
Van Der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). EXPERTNESS DIVERSITY
AND INTERPERSONAL HELPING IN TEAMS: WHY THOSE WHO NEED THE
MOST HELP END UP GETTING THE LEAST. Academy of Management Journal,
49(5), 877-893. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.22798169
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION
27
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 515-541.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of
creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355-387.
West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F. C., Shapiro, D. A., & Haward, B.
(2003). Leadership clearity and innovation in health care. The Leadership Quarterly,
14, 393-410.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and
Organizational Strategies. San Francisco: Wiley.
West, M. A., Topakas, A., & Dawson, J. F. (2014). Climate and Culture for Health Care
Performance. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 335-359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wittenbaum, G., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated
information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm.
Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286-310.
Xyrichis, A., & Lowton, K. (2008). What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking
in primary and community care? A literature review. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 45(1), 140-153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.01.015
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 28
Table 1
Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations of all study variables
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Team size 15.84 7.08
2. Team typea 0.57 0.50 0.21**
3. Number of occupational groups in
team 5.84 3.99 -0.12 -0.92**
4. Information sharing 3.99 0.36 -0.22** -0.26** 0.24**
5. Helping behaviour 3.47 0.37 -0.10 -0.21** 0.20* 0.77**
6. Occupational diversity 1.44 0.30 0.31** -0.13 0.33** 0.05 0.04
7. Innovation 2.53 0.56 0.33** 0.14* -0.12 0.18* 0.38** 0.23**
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01 a 1 = Community mental health team, 0 = Breast cancer team
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 29
Table 2
Results of direct regression analyses
Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypotheses 1 & 2
CMHT BCT CMHT BCT CMHT BCT
Control variables
Team size .49** .16 .47** .12 .41** .12
Number of occupational groups in team -.13 .08 -.11 .06 -.09 .05
Focal variables
Information sharing .40** .19 -.26 -.04
Helping behaviour .55** .32** .75** .35*
Change in R2 due to focal variable(s) .13 .03 .28 .09 .30 .10
Note. Figures in main section of table are standardized regression (beta) coefficients
* p < .05; ** p < .01
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 30
Table 3
Results of moderated regression analyses
Hypothesis 3a Hypothesis 3b Hypothesis 4a Hypothesis 4b
CMHT BCT CMHT BCT CMHT BCT CMHT BCT
Team size .52** .16 .49** .11 .63** -.06 .58** -.02
Number of occupational groups in team -.10 .06 -.09 .04 -.10 .09 -.08 .05
Information sharing .48** .18 .36** .50**
Helping behaviour .60** .21 .53** .41**
Occupational diversity .01 .08 .01 .05
Information sharing*Occupational
diversity interaction .22* .07
Information sharing*Team size
interaction .28* .47**
Helping behaviour*Occupational
diversity interaction .25* .19
Helping behaviour*Team size interaction .26** .19
Total R2
.27 .10 .44 .17 .28 .18 .43 .16
Change in R2 due to interaction term .13 .03 .05 .02 .04 .00 .05 .01
Note. Figures in main section of table are standardized regression (beta) coefficients
* p < .05; ** p < .01
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 31
Figure 1. Moderating effect of occupational diversity on the information sharing-innovation
relationship in CMHTs
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low information sharing High information sharing
Inn
ova
tio
n
Low occupational diversity
High occupational diversity
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 32
Figure 2. Moderating effect of occupational diversity on the helping behaviour-innovation
relationship in CMHTs
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low helping behaviour High helping behaviour
Inn
ova
tion
Low occupational diversity
High occupational diversity
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 33
Figure 3. Moderating effect of team size on the information sharing-innovation relationship in
CMHTs
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low information sharing High information sharing
Inn
ova
tion
Small teams
Large teams
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM INNOVATION 34
Figure 4. Moderating effect of team size on the helping behaviour-innovation relationship in
CMHTs
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low helping behaviour High helping behaviour
Inn
ova
tio
n
Small teams
Large teams
Top Related